Could the U.S. purchase the northern Mexico states?

[ag]

The necessary condition for doing this, of course, would be military occupation of the said therritory. In fact, for any Mexican government to consider the sale, at the very least, Mexico City should be first occupied (its return would have to be thrown into the bargain).

Of course, assuming the annexation happens without ethnic cleansing of the current population, it would bring in about 22 mln. Mexicans - roughly Florida and Nebraska together. I guess, a few thousand of these would be Anglo mormons and German mennonites, but the rest would be very Mexican

[ag]

That would be like like the Chinese nuking Fresno. Theoretically, it's possible, but it's not actually going to happen.

That's not a fair comparison. Purchasing the states, would mean we're going to improve them slowly over a 50-100 year span. In turn, the Mexican citizens become US citizens.

Building the wall south of Chihuahua and the other northern states makes sense because the border isn't as long, and will take nearly half the time. Offer the new U.S. citizens a job in the private sector building the wall and once it's complete, they become border patrol agents.

The goal is to grant them US citizenship, improve their lives, make a stronger, shorter secured border, they're guaranteed jobs and the US gets more land and resources.  A win-win situation.

But you forget the costs of

a) war, necessary for a Mexican government to accept the deal. I guess, it would take a few months and would result in a few hundreds to a couple of thousands of US soldiers dying, though, of course, that would be fairly quick

b) pacification of the guerrillas for the couple years necessary to catch the Mexican government and negotiate the deal. I guess, a few tens of thousands of US casualties and a fairly major expansion of the US Army in the process. A high probability of terrorist attacks in major US centers in the process should also be taken into account. Also, continuing guerilla activity (both in the annexed territory and on the US mainland, for, probably, another 10-15 years afterwards, with sporadic violence for a few decades more.

c) major welfare transfers needed to buy off the bulk of the population of the conquered territories (there are 22 mln. people there - about 1/6 of Mexico's population - and the population is growing). Given the current gap between the economies and future violence (see b) this would, probably, take, say, 40 years or so.

d) having to deal with the complete breakdown of law and order in the rump Mexico for, at least, 10 to 15 years (expect, at least, I should say, 10 to 20 mln refugees). During that entire period Mexico will likely not have any government capable of agreeing to anything, since there will be no government capable of any control. Alternatively, there could emerge a brutal dictatorship - this would be necessary to supress irredentist movements, trying to fight the US (US would need to spend a lot to prevent its overthrow). Or there could emerge a revolutionary anti-american government insisting on continuing the fight - the outcome of which, probably, would be a US occupation of the rump Mexico and establishment of a brutal dictatorship - except, of course, that in this case US will have to provide the soldiers to maintain this dictatorship pretty much indefinitely.

Ah, and, of course, forget about Cancun - Americans there would only be served in tacos for decades to come

How much do you think all of that would cost? I would say, it is likely that buidling a wall of platinum for the entire length of the border, with another wall of pure gold parallel to it, with spikes of top-quality brilliants on top and crocodiles in the moat between the walls fed top-quality osetra caviar could turn out to be substantially cheaper

[ag]

The necessary condition for doing this, of course, would be military occupation of the said therritory. In fact, for any Mexican government to consider the sale, at the very least, Mexico City should be first occupied (its return would have to be thrown into the bargain).

Of course, assuming the annexation happens without ethnic cleansing of the current population, it would bring in about 22 mln. Mexicans - roughly Florida and Nebraska together. I guess, a few thousand of these would be Anglo mormons and German mennonites, but the rest would be very Mexican

ag - At times I've heard disdain from folks from the DF and surrounding areas for the El Norte population that borders the US. Is there any truth to that, or is it just something to say to the gringos?

As true as it is everywhere else. New Yorkers are as dismissive of the fly-over folks. And, of course, it works both ways: it is not only Cruz who talks of "New York values" but also  regiomontanos are prone to say all sorts of things about chilangos. And, of course, Oaxaca accent is treated a lot worse in DF than the norteño. But, if push comes to shove, they are all Mexican this side of the border.

[ag]

I like the sound of this. But why purchase it when we can invade it instead?

Are you in the reserves or on active duty already?

[ag]

You could pay for it by selling naming rights to each calendar year, obviously.

As well as the Brooklyn Bridge, of course

[ag]

Do not forget as well that Mexico used to start at the Colombian border this side of Panama

[ag]

Since Mexico is organized as a federation I'm pretty sure that it would be unconstitutional for the Mexican federal government to sell states.

But would it be unconstitutional for the individual states to have an independence or annexation vote, and then for Mexico to be financially compensated by the US afterwards?

Aside from this, of course, being entirely unconstitutional (Article 2 of the Constitution "The Mexican Nation is one and indivisible"), there is simply no chance in hell such an initiative could win in any democratic vote, be that legislative or popular - unless, of course, it is preceded by a major population removal beforehand. Anybody who thinks otherwise highly underestimates the degree of nationalism south of the border.

Let us be very clear: the necessary pre-condition for any Mexican government to consider something like that is the US military first occupying Mexico City by force.

[ag]

But would it be unconstitutional for the individual states to have an independence or annexation vote, and then for Mexico to be financially compensated by the US afterwards?

I'm willing to bet that if Mexico legitimately wanted to do this and it was unconstitutional, they would just get an amendment passed to make it constitutional. It's not likely a situation would arise without a significant amount of support.

But for the record, the idea itself is ridiculous.

Yeah, ammending the consitution is not a problem: it is done every year. The problem is the content of the ammendment: no Mexican political force can simultaneously advocate such an ammendment and have a chance to have any of its members elected a dogcatcher anywhere in the country.